Utah asked the Supreme Court to answer a single question: "Whether the 14th
Amendment prohibits a state from defining or recognizing marriage only as the
legal union between a man and a woman."

===

NO Mr. AG,
Amendment 3 did more than simply banning SSM, or "defining or recognizing
marriage only as the legal union between a man and a woman", it excludes the
possibility of civil union too. even if many Utahns now support civil union,
Amendment 3 makes it impossible.

Well, I feel vindicated. I wrote a rather scathing comment the other day, which
didn't make it into print, criticizing Utah's SCOTUS petition (lead
attorney: Gene Schaerr). Reading the petition, I was struck with how
singularly ineffective those recycled legal arguments have been thus far. I
closed with, "those opposed to marriage equality better hope SCOTUS
doesn't accept this petition. Any other states' would probably be
better for your cause."

Apparently, the Plaintiffs'
attorneys must have read the brief and come to the same conclusion.

"NO Mr. AG, Amendment 3 did more than simply banning SSM, or "defining
or recognizing marriage only as the legal union between a man and a woman",
it excludes the possibility of civil union too. even if many Utahns now support
civil union, Amendment 3 makes it impossible.

That fact alone is an
invitation of striking down Amendment 3."

So if it removed the
clause excluding civil unions, you would agree with Amendment 3?

I
think most people are assuming that the SC will rule in favor of the SSM side
and strike down state amendments banning gay marriage. They say Utah will,
ironically, be the force to allow SSM across the entire country.

I
actually think this will go the other direction. I think Utah will be
responsible for upholding State's Rights across the country. Other than
the flubbed first ObamaCare ruling, the SC has been ruling very Conservatively
since then, including the recent strike down of the ObamaCare benefits from the
federal marketplace and the Hobby Lobby ruling.

If I were a SSM
supporter, I would be absolutely terrified that this is going to the SC. A poor
strategy on their part for letting it get this far.

@illuminated"So if it removed the clause excluding civil unions, you
would agree with Amendment 3?"

the point is, because there is
already such a clause, Amendment 3 is definitely unconstitutional. if you
want to have another constitution amendment without the clause excluding civil
unions, that is a different issue.

There is nothing to be afraid of. If it isn't
struck down now, by the time this new generation is grown (yes, even in Utah),
our children will vote to abolish this bad amendment to our state Constitution.
It is just a matter of time.

They are not being taught to fear and
hate those who are different, but to accept. They know too many people (some of
whom are related to them) who are not scary or to be feared. They will change
this if we, their parents are too chicken.

"If it isn't struck down now, by the time this new
generation is grown, our children will vote to abolish this bad amendment to our
state Constitution. It is just a matter of time...They will change this if we,
their parents are too chicken."

Even you don't sound too
confident with the SC ruling on this. Good sign. If they do in fact side with
the 10th Amendment, it will mean you will need a 2/3 vote from the states to add
an amendment allowing an override of the 10th on marriage law. All I can say
is...good luck with that. ;)

"They are not being taught to fear
and hate those who are different, but to accept."

Do you really
think people still buy this straw-man? It's not about hate, man, it's
about states having the right to keep an institution sacred. It's about
Federalism, the concept that the best blood of the 18th century died for.
We're not a Democracy, each person does not get to decide what is best. We
are a Representative Republic with state laws and leaders that are voted upon
by, yes, the -majority-.

illuminated: First off, you are reading the 10th amendment wrong. It states
right in there that the states or the people can have the powers not delegated
to the federal government as long as they obey the constitution: "The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it (that is the Constitution, btw) to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people."

That means that the states must
not pass any law regarding these powers that are unconstitutional.

Secondly, the state definitely does not have the right to keep an institution
"sacred." That is putting some religious beliefs above others or those
who do not have any religious beliefs. We can show that is unconstitutional
right in Amendment #1, right?

If I remember my Civil War history,
states rights were defeated by the Union. (19th Century blood was spilt for
that victory.)

The Constitution is still the supreme law of the land.
Our State Constitution also states that fact. Now, we just need to learn how
we can enjoy some rights and privileges that we will not allow other Americans
of enjoying-- and still say we are following the constitution.

Web Geek"I think both sides of the debate can agree on this one thing:
We need a nationwide ruling on gay marriage."

We need a national
ruling in order to simply the application of the Privileges and Immunities
Clause of Article IV of the US Constitution.

And, if SCOTUS rules in
favor of SSM, we need to understand completely how the court came to that
conclusion... not just citation of the 14th Amendment. Because if the 14th
Amendment supports SSM it must also support all other marriage arrangements that
can be conjured by mankind... such as polygamy, siblings and other close
relatives, and even children.

And don't tell me that children
can't marry. History is replete with such marriages. But, if you have
trouble with children marrying then just strike it from the list of marriages in
the above paragraph.

Civil
marriage laws are enactments authorizing the grant of special state benefits for
certain kinds of unions. In other words, they give to people in qualifying
relationships what the Framers called “privileges and
immunities”—an 18th century legal phrase that refers to benefits
bestowed by government on some people to the exclusion of others.

American governments traditionally have conceded the “privileges and
immunities” of civil marriage only to a social union complying with
certain exacting requirements. With some variations, state laws traditionally
require that the union be (1) of a man and a woman, (2) who undergo certain
procedures in advance, (3) obtain a valid license, (4) have consented, (5) are
above a certain age, (6) are not married to anyone else, (7) are not too closely
related to each other, and (8) meet certain other requirements of ceremony
and/or cohabitation.

States traditionally have excluded from special
benefits all other groupings—including, but not limited to, same-sex
marriages, polygamous marriages, polyandric marriages, other plural clusters,
designated intra-family unions (e.g., brother/sister and uncle/niece), and
unions that are unlicensed or that otherwise fail to meet the states’
rules.

Depends on what you consider a child. Myself, I think of those
in their 20's as children. In Utah you can legally get married at the age
of 15. Young children cannot sign a legal contract, like those to buy a car,
rent an apartment, or a contract with the state such as a marriage license.
Those who opposed interracial marriage also warned against the same slippery
slope. Personally I would have no problem with the legalization of polygamy. I
have a neighbor who has three wives and many children. They are wonderful, nice,
great people. Utah also recognizes some marriages that are not legal here but
are in other states. You cannot marry your 1st cousin in Utah. But you can drive
to Colorado, marry your 1st cousin there, and drive back. And Utah will still
recognize you as legally married.

Whenever we (as the government) place a restriction upon a
citizen or group of citizens, we must have a reason for taking their freedom
away.

It is easy to see why a blind man is restricted from getting
a driver's license - it is easy to see the harm that can come from that.

It is also easy to see why a child under the age of 15 (that is
Utah's law, btw) must have parental approval before they are allowed to
marry. It is easy to see the harm that can fall upon the children of any close
relative that may marry.

Now, explain to me the harm in allowing two
lesbians to marry that are raising children. Who is harmed by allowing them to
marry? Will keeping them from marrying cause less harm to them or more harm to
this family? How is anyone else harmed?

How about two gay men who
have lived together for 40 years? What harm can come from allowing these two
men to marry? Who is harmed and how?

@illuminated"If I were a SSM supporter, I would be absolutely
terrified that this is going to the SC."

I suggest you read
Scalia's irate dissent in Windsor to learn why he was so upset. The
Windsor ruling is why your side is losing unanimously. Something like 34
courts have now ruled against you in the last years, and not a single one has
ruled in your favor. Windsor is why.

--If Utah had gotten rid of
that law 10 years sooner, it would have been embarrassingly late for a non-slave
State.

All this has to do with the Mormon dilemma: there are at least
100,000 Gays in mormon families in Utah, some too young to have realized it. All
these people are raised in a marriage-centered culture.--- Think of that
13 year old who is hating himself/herself because to follow his true nature
means that he is supposed to spend not only this life, but all eternity,
alone.

The lds have been willing to overlook the hurt to many
hundreds of thousands of Americans, and to their own family members, because
they believe God has not given them direction to do differently.

I
think that the wave of acceptance of equality that has swept most of the country
(and something like 80% of the young, is a sign that God says He was ready.

If Utah does not want to be thought of as equivalent to Mississippi and
Alabama, it needs to move on this issue.

If the
Utah case goes to the SCOTUS and the SC rules in favor of equality and declares
SSM legal in our country, what impact will this have around the world?

The LDS church have thousands of missionaries around the world who will be
questioned about SSM and Utah. Obviously the missionaries will state the
position of the church. But just having the conversation is a huge step for the
whole world in the right direction.

"The state contends that ruling deprives Utah voters of their right to
define marriage as they overwhelmingly did in passing Amendment 3 a decade
ago."

--- Utah voters did not have the right to pass any
amendment that restricted the Civil Rights of LGBT American citizens; even to
the extent of "defining marriage".

@illuminated;

"So if it removed the clause excluding civil unions, you would agree with
Amendment 3? "

--- At this point, absolutely not!

1)
You would have to VOTE to amend Amendment 3 anyway.2) You weren't
willing to allow civil unions when you passed A3, now there is no reason
whatsoever why we should accept some lesser term now that you're losing the
battle in the courts.3) Separate is not equal

Frankly, I think
you're assessment is wrong. SCOTUS knows which way the wind is blowing;
additionally, refusal to allow SSM creates a condition where an LGBT couple is
married, divorced, married, divorced, married, divorced again as they travel
from state to state; something that DOES NOT happen to straight couples.